Paul Dacre at the Leveson Inquiry

[bananaistheanswer]

here

I was going to add comment to the other thread I started here at the beginning of the inquiry but purely for the comedy value alone, I felt this warranted it's own, shiney new thread. The above isn't word for word, just the guardian blog, but there are some crackers in there, and I haven't even got to the end.

Did you know, criticism of the Daily Mail stems from a lack of understanding on how journalism works? Next time you see a thread on here quoting the Daily Mail, just remember, we just don't understand how journalism works. Feast your eyes on the pearls of wisdom dished out by the one and only Mr Dacre, and enjoy...

Yeah, I saw Leveson swear yesterday. It was so matter of fact. It was great.

I agree about Yates looking more and more like a duped idiot. Someone yesterday mentioned him being 'groomed' by the press. I think that's pretty pertinent. He seems like a vain man who's been duped by meals in the Ivy and the high life.

And Stevenson's 6 week free ( £12,000 worth ) of spa treatment care of the ex-NOW deputy editor.

Yates saying he was 'very well connected' when refusing his phone records to be viewed.

The deputy Mayor putting pressure on to drop the phone hacking enquiry. The Damien Green case.

And most of them saying ' well in hindsight, yes it was a poor decision' . Yes you fuckers, you've shown appalling past judgement.

Jeeeeezus it's a nasty old mess. One hopes wonders if it will go to the top.

It would of course be unthinkable that an ex-NOW editor who may or may not have known about hacking, might end up working for the PM as his press secretary and using said techniques to eaves drop on the opposition....

That would never happen of course.

cough Watergate cough

I didn't watch. Unfortunately work intruded.

But I heard the word 'groomed' and thought it was an excellent choice and deliberately so. Who said it?

What shocks me is how cheaply people can be bought. Obviously dinner at the Ivy is beyond most people but at the end of the day it's just fucking dinner.

What curse did Leveson use? I'm sure it was very judgely swearing. None of your 'up yer bum'.

I think it was Godwin who said 'groomed' but can't be sure. I agree it was an excellent choice of words and given what is coming out fits the situation perfectly.

Steveson said he didn't know anything about the Green case. Apparantly the Met are saying he did. The plot thickens.

I'm quite glad there have been a few police officers who are saying they simply met the press in their office, during the day and offered no more than tea and biscuits. It really does contrast with the likes of Yates and co who seem to argue that a champagne diner in the Ivy was a natural thing to do when dealing with the press.

Leveson said 'fucking' whilst quoting a Guardian article. It was very matter of fact.

There is a joke now that the inquiry is the only place where someone like Dacre doesn't swear and Leveson does :o

My heart is bleeding at this plea: Please Sir, can my client go now?

This bit at the end is breathtakingly cheeky.

There are a number of individuals out there whose reputations have been traduced. Few people know the impact of such publicity on their lives, and the depth of stress and worry they have had to bear.

good choice of picture though :o

Sheesh, the rank hypocrisy of that article really grates with me. This bit Understandably, the press reported this extensively. Instantly, stories appeared about various individuals who had been arrested as part of the inquiry. Er, they didn't have to name names, they didn't have to report anything. But, they chose to, in the interests of selling newspapers. Chris Jeffries anyone? The press reporting on issues being examined by Leveson, with those within the press then questioning whether they could possibly receive a fair trial as a result of press reporting?

And in the context of what the press print in terms of comment on anything sub judice, should a lawyer acting for someone who is the subject of an investigation be writing press articles, and commenting on the case/their client?

Consider the Daily Mail's response to Hugh Grant's testimony.

I think the argument about Akers statement to the inquiry and whether this has prejudiced any future court case, or those arrested/investigated having their right to a fair trial prejudiced, is really clutching at straws. I hope this is dealt with swiftly, so as to move past the bleating, and whining. God forbid this gives all those being investigated a 'get out clause' from being prosecuted.

Every single person in this country has the right to a fair trial - whether they murdered 20 people or might have listened to Sienna Miller making an appointment at the hairdressers.

I'm not arguing against that nancy - I'm simply highlighting the rank hypocrisy in members of the press complaining about the possibility that press exposure might prejudice any trial for them, while being one of the biggest culprits in causing trials to collapse through irresponsible press reporting. I don't want any trial of those involved in this to evade justice, if that's what their actions warrant.

The issue of Aker's evidence possibly prejudicing any trial that NI employees might have wasn't raised straight away. As far as I'm aware (and I'm prepared to be corrected on this if wring) it stems from a complaint by 'someone' who is up to their neck in this. Whoever made the complaint isn't worried about a fair trial IMO - it's more likely to be a bargaining tool to get out of having to face a trial.

Every single person in this country has the right to a fair trial

In that case, maybe it's about time the press themselves took notice of that right, and stopped reporting details that have the potential to prejudice all trials/criminal cases then eh?

I don't see how the argument that this would be grounds not to proceed to trial stands up.

If so it would have been wrong to try Dobson and Norris for murdering Stephen Lawrence after years of negative publicity chiefly led by the Daily Mail.

Does anyone remember the trial of the Leeds Utd footballers charged with beating up a student that collapsed because the Sunday Mirror published and interview with the boy's dad in the middle of it?

That was Colin Myler's doing too. I don't think it was sinister. Just an urge to beat rivals to the story and a pathetic need to be seen sticking up for the Asian underdog.

I'm not insulting the Asian student or his poor duped dad who were robbed of a trial because of the Sunday Mirror's stupidity. The insult is in the cynical decisions of a group of people who think: 'Ooh, This will make us look good. Maybe there'll be an award in it.'

I don't understand how even the most junior reporter would miss the obvious contempt issue. I cannot decide whether it was stupidity or a calculated risk that they could get away with it.

And they did - there was no contempt of court charge against Myler or anyone else responsible for the decision.

Have been listening to this.

It's from last August but is still relevant. It gets especially revealing at about 28 mins when Dr Tim Brain, Chief Constable of Gloucestershire turned academic, insists that there isn't evidence of widespread corruption at the Met. That was then...

He sounds like what I'm sure John Yates and the rest of the senior Met would dismiss as Provincial Plod. That's a bit sad since Small-Brain defends Yates's integrity.

Perhaps it's just as well he left the police because he doesn't sound capable of tracking down a lost dog.

I've been up since 6.45am clearing up the kitchen. I had to listen to something

It's a desperate argument that the Met had more important things to do than investigate the whinings of soppy celebrity birds (a favourite of the policeman's friend, and Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn).

Phone-hacking was originally referred to counter-terrorism officers because it involved the Royal Family. That was as it should be. When it quickly became clear there was no terrorist threat it should have been handed over to another unit, leaving the counter-terrorism squad to keep us all safe in our beds.

But it wasn't, was it? Instead Hayman, who I cannot believe has never seen the inside of a custody suite from the wrong side of the table, kept control of it. I wonder why.

A 43 year old woman has been arrested at her address in Oxfordshire this morning along with 5 others.

I wonder who that might be.

Now that has made my day!

I won't comment as I wouldn't want to prejudice any potential criminal proceedings

I feel sorry for Dave. He's going to land in Washington in a few hours and have his important world statesman moment with Obama ruined by questions about Rebekah Brooks again.

I feel sorry for Brooks and her husband too. They were dreaming of their outing to the first day of the Cheltenham Festival when Plod woke them up at 5am.

arrested for ''Perverting Course of Justice'

Fedorcio is giving evidence just now.

arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice

Is that ^^ more serious that just perverting the course of justice? My instinct says yes, but I've no idea.

ooh no idea, i know it can carry a prison sentence

Fedorcio isn't doing very well. Particularly during questioning on whether he briefed against Brian Paddick, Ian Blair and Bob Quick.

The short answer is yes.

There was quite an amusing exchange that boiled down to if a paper wanted to run a damaging story because it was good for them then all Fedorcio's schmoozing in bars news management wasn't worth a damn. Not really, admitted Dick of The Yard.

The maximum sentence for the crime if convicted is life imprisonment. When Andy Coulson was arrested I read something said if convicted he might expect 3-5 years.

Don't know whether the conspiracy aspect makes it worse. Bet it doesn't make them feel better though

I just think the conspiracy bit could meanit's worse as they would have collectively worked to pervert the course of justice, which to me has a far greater prospect to be successful in that aim i.e. a number of people working towards the same aim is a lot harder to get around that just one person flailing around trying to scupper an investigation. I hope that means sentencing will be at the higher end of the scale you mention limited.

Interesting times...

They're slaughtering Fedorcio over the way the contract was stitched up so Neil Wallis got it.

First of all he asked only Wallis to tender, then when told he'd have to get two other quotes he chose Bell Pottinger and another company called Hanover who were bound to be a lot more expensive than a one-man band.

When asked why didn't consider the more comparable small PR outfits run by ex-NI people Phil Hall or Stuart Higgins Fedorcio claimed not to have heard of Hall, a former editor of the NoW and previously a news editor of the People, and said he thought Higgins only did celeb news but didn't ask.

He's very unconvincing on the close links between Wallis and Yates - claimed not to know about them and claimed that Yates expressed no opinion on learning that his mate was going to get a senior job. Claimed not to know that Wallis was still associated with NI. Grudgingly admitted that if he did know of them he wouldn't have appointed Wallis.

"... I don't recall." Seems to be the phrase of the day.

Wish I'd known that as a youngster whilst mum was berating me for some mis-behaviour.

OMG anyone watching ?!

Leveson looses his cool with the Times lawyer. Picks up his statement and forces lawyer to admit his witness statement isn't accurate.

Leveson describes a second section of the witness statement as "utterly misleading".

Brett replies: "It is not the full story".

He says the inquiry is "being fantastically precise" about the witness statement.

Leveson sternly replies: "I'm being precise because this is a statement being submitted to a court, Mr Brett."